Yes, that seems to solve the problem as scary as that is. When you think of the binary abilities of patch you understand the concern. It does not work on just text files ... supposedly. I've never played with patching binaries but again, supposedly, you can.

Hello, we're Microsoft, security by keyword...!

However, since I build on XP as much or more than Vista and beyond, I'll never remember to use the different name on what machine ... that's why I made the dumb SU4Win.

I'm just tired of having to stop, open up a console as admin and CD\ing my way back to where I was just so I could type;

patch -p1 -b < filename.patch

I need to do that for no other part of the process, so that is why I made su4w. Stupid as it is ... did it work for you?

Now in your email on su4w you said "I think you like linux" ... lol ... so far from the truth that is! I do however feel, if Windoze is going to be like Linux this way, they should at least give the same tools .... but no.

I personally hate cd-ing around in the console, I have nightmares that night of being back in '91 cd-ing all over in DOS 5 cause you had to back then.

I keep a command prompt shortcut (or VC9 prompt shortcut) at the top of every build folder. If you remove the working directory in the shortcut it will open in the directory launched. This saves a lot of cd-ing all over. Give it a try, you'll see.

Now try it using "Run as Administrator," it completely ignores pretty much everthing and starts up in c:\user\system regardless of where you started from.

In all cases BUT using patch, I never need admin rights. In XP obviously I don't. Anyhow, SU4Win will launch an Admin'd console in the current directory you call it from saving all that cd-ing around.